Eikah; From Isolation to Integration

The Evolution of Jewish Communal Responsibility

There is a profound connection between three occurrences of "eikha" (how) during the week of Parashat Devarim: Moses' lament in the Torah portion, Isaiah's rebuke in the haftara, and Jeremiah's mourning in Lamentations. While "eikha" is normally a neutral word meaning "how," it has taken on a specific connotation of sorrow and pain, becoming central to expressions of mourning and lamentation. Rabbi Steinsaltz z"l argues that Moses' complaint "How (eikha) can I myself alone bear your trouble, your burden, and your strife" wasn't about leadership being difficult, but about the isolation of bearing responsibility alone. Despite the wilderness generation having experienced God's voice directly at Sinai and containing many individuals worthy of prophecy, they remained passive recipients who were content to let Moses handle everything while they avoided real involvement in communal affairs.

In this Parasha, the cantillation mark etnaĥta generally determines where the stress should be placed in a verse. In the verse, “How can I myself alone bear your trouble, your burden, and your strife,” the etnaĥta falls on the words “myself alone (levadi),” and this was the root of Moses’ problem.  The problem began with the fact that Moses was alone. What truly ate at him was that all of “your trouble, your burden, and your strife” fell only on him. Moses did not mean to say that he needed a certain number of attendants, soldiers, and bodyguards at his disposal. Rather, his complaint was that no one else besides him really cared. So, too, when he complained, “Did I conceive this people, did I give birth to them?” (Num. 11:12), it was not because he had a hard job. There, too, Moses’ problem was that no one else cared – “I am not able to bear this entire people myself alone” (11:14).

This pattern of communal apathy and abdication of responsibility continued throughout Jewish history, manifesting in the progression of "eikha" from Moses' initial cry to Isaiah's harsh accusation "How (eikha) has the faithful city become a harlot!" There is a direct connection between Moses' relatively minor complaint and Isaiah's devastating indictment - the city became corrupt precisely because of the situation Moses identified. The author traces how entire populations remained indifferent to whether their kings were righteous or wicked, with even the righteous keeping their heads down and avoiding involvement. 

Society cannot be sustained through top-down enforcement alone - when people love bribes and pursue payments, when no one is willing to confront corruption or injustice, the entire social fabric deteriorates. The progression from apathy to moral collapse follows a predictable pattern that ultimately reaches its extreme extension in Jeremiah's "How (eikha) does the city sit solitary." The author traces this "eikha progression" - from Moses' complaint about bearing burdens alone, through Isaiah's condemnation of societal corruption, to Jeremiah's lament over complete destruction and isolation. Each "eikha" represents a deeper stage of communal breakdown rooted in the same fundamental problem: people's unwillingness to take active responsibility.

The transformation only came after the Babylonian exile, when for the first time a Jewish community emerged that didn't depend on individual leaders to drive everything. The covenant in Nehemiah was written in the plural - "We have taken upon ourselves" - marking the emergence of self-motivated communal responsibility. The contrast is stark: after the Golden Calf, only Moses' family (the Levites) answered his call, but when Cyrus permitted return to Jerusalem, a large congregation voluntarily went up without coercion. The text's ultimate message is that lasting change requires personal involvement from each individual - true communal strength comes not from great leaders bearing everything alone, but from each person taking active responsibility 

Questions to Contemplate